Mathematica 9 is now available
Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2008

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Comments on the .m file editor

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg87898] Re: Comments on the .m file editor
  • From: "David Park" <djmpark at comcast.net>
  • Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 03:38:09 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <fu9fss$cdu$1@smc.vnet.net>

I don't see the advantages of writing package with the .m file editor. 
Normally I don't even look at the .m file. I would be interested in hearing 
comments from some of the sophisticated users about when writing .m files 
directly might be advantagous.

Normally a routine should be written and debugged in a regular Mathematica 
..nb notebook. A debugging method that works for almost all cases and is very 
easy to use is just to insert temporary Print statements into the routine.

When a routine is debugged, and a usage message and SyntaxInformation are 
written it can just be moved to a package.nb notebook with Initialization 
cells that has been saved as an Auto Generated Package.

That is by far the easiest method.

You can put (* comments *) anywhere in a Mathematica expression but one very 
negative feature of Mathematica is that if one uses Shift-Ctrl-N or 
Shift-Ctrl-I to convert and reformat a cell it strips out all the comments. 
I think comments should be considered a permanent part of an expression and 
never stripped out by such reformating.

-- 
David Park
djmpark at comcast.net
http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/


"Will Robertson" <wspr81 at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:fu9fss$cdu$1 at smc.vnet.net...
> Hello,
>
> As essentially a new user of Mathematica since v6, I'd like to share a
> couple of comments about using Mathematica itself to write .m packages
> directly. I'm only using v6.0.1 because I can't afford the bug-fix
> update right now, so a couple of these comments may no longer be
> relevant.
>
> Firstly, the positives: It's great to be able to write code in an
> editor that explicitly understands the syntax. Brace matching and
> selection are good, and syntax colouring is excellent.
>
> Being able to write comments in outline mode is also great; especially
> with "input cells" that aren't part of the package but allow you to
> execute code; this makes testing and code exposition very convenient
> because it can be done inline with the code itself.
>
> Now, the negatives. The first complaint is more ignorance than
> anything: I've got no idea how to use the debugger. It's great that
> it's there, but I don't understand how it's supposed to be used. Are
> there any tutorials on this feature?
>
> Next: the editor *really* needs to make up its mind whether it's going
> to support "nice" Mathematica symbols or not. It's ridiculous that
> typing "-> " gives you a nice arrow, but then closing and re-opening
> the file gives you the literal ascii. Worse, typing a complex
> expression involving Greek letters and subscripts and accents looks
> fine to start with but then turns into an unreadable mess when
> re-opening the package.
>
> Since Mathematica can understand the FullForm in package files, I can't
> see the harm in displaying it nicely in the .m file editor. Similarly,
> the lack of nice spacing in the typesetting of the code is a shame and
> makes packages look uglier -- usually requiring extra whitespace (and
> effort) to be readable.
>
> Finally, the editor doesn't like code that has comments inserted
> mid-way through. For example, paste this into a file test.m:
>
> (* ::Package:: *)
> code[hello,
> (* ::Text:: *)
> (*some explanation*)
> there]
>
> Open it in Mathematica, then select all, cut, and paste (this procedure
> emulates you typing in those lines manually). Close and reopen the file
> and you'll see that Mathematica has inserted two blank lines in the
> code. Yuck.
>
> Furthermore, this sort of construction kills syntax colouring, which is
> a big shame.
> It also breaks the "Run Package" button, which tries to evaluate the
> package cell by cell (instead, it should simply execute `<<"test.m"`).
>
> I don't think that cells should be restricted to contain self-contained
> chunks of code when large packages deserve better comments than an
> essay right before the Module with inline comments like (* we're doing
> stuff here *). If those sorts of comments was the only way to document
> the code then we may as well not even bother with cells, to be frank.
>
> ***
>
> To sum up: the .m file editor is pretty neat but two main additions
> would make it much better: explicit support for breaking cells up with
> comments whereever you like (including syntax checking and colouring
> across cell breaks); and typesetting as in the the notebook editor
> (including the extended symbols). In the very least, it shouldn't
> interpret typeset symbols unless it intends to preserve them. The
> typesetting doesn't affect anyone trying to edit the thing in plain
> text and makes the whole thing much nicer to use.
>
> After all, without nice typesetting we may as well go back to notebooks
> with initialisation cells, which have even less ability to be commented
> nicely by splitting up cells partway through.
>
> Any comments from others also using the editor?
>
> Best regards,
> Will Robertson
>
> 



  • Prev by Date: problem accessing notebooks
  • Next by Date: Re: Comments on the .m file editor
  • Previous by thread: Comments on the .m file editor
  • Next by thread: Re: Comments on the .m file editor